Re: Skeptic Bible Study: Dunce Disciples

[aarongohn]

this video sucks. umm k.

[JordanKimball]

haha. this guy thinks its a straw man argument. You are lying to yourself if you believe the crap this guy is spewing. Maybe you should watch deistpaladin's video again.

[dhasenan]

If you put Mark 6:5 in context: Jesus went to his home town. *There* he wasn't able to do any significant miracles. That was an aberration.

I'm also curious that you chose Mark's accounts; Mark is the tersest of the gospels. John has an account of this in which the disciples (specifically Andrew) expresses significant doubt.

[gangboy4ever86]

The go to ''heaven'' and leave the human race with your idiotic arguments old guy

[FalleJr]

I love your definition of a straw man. "You build up this elaborate thing that has nothing to do with reality, then you tear it down" But you failed to mention that the christians themselves built up this elaborate thing that has nothing to do with reality. You guys even wrote a book about it, the bible. We athiests just tear it down.

Peace!

[devikkyrn]

Umm...... please reread Mark 8:4, exactly as you have it listed in the video description, and tell me the disciples did not doubt that Jesus could do the same thing he had JUST done.

[Intrepidman]

Mar 8:4 And his disciples answered him, From whence can a man satisfy these [men] with bread here in the wilderness?

I think I see the cause of your confusion. Let's paraphrase this verse a little:

"How are we gonna feed all these people?"

This could be taken 2 ways.

1)Fear and doubt."How are we gonna feed ALL these people?"

2)Question about what to do next."HOW are we gonna feed all these people?"

I believe that #2 is the correct interpretation because the following verses back this up.

[devikkyrn]

Let's try this again, with the NIV bible.

Mark 8:4 - His disciples answered, "But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?"

[Intrepidman]

It still says the same thing. It's a question designed to get a response from Jesus on how to continue. It doesn't really say anything other than, "What do we do next?"

It doesn't say that He can't feed them, or that they forgot He fed people before.

It's worded a little weird for Westerners, but that is they way the Master/Learner relationships work in Oriental cultures, often.

It would have been rude to just say, "Well, feed them then, like before."

[devikkyrn]

Well, I guess this is pointless. Anyone can sit there and try to twist words to say what they want them to say. You won't find a single person who will accept your interpretation of this passage EXCEPT a person who has an ulterior motive, like you, to prove that Jesus existed.

[Intrepidman]

First, I'll, prove that your response is nothing less than an Ad Hominem attack,

"Well, I guess this is pointless. Anyone can sit there and try to twist words to say what they want them to say. You won't find a single person who will accept your interpretation of this passage EXCEPT a person who has an ulterior motive, like you, to prove that Jesus NEVER existed."

Second, I do not allow Ad Hominem attacks on my page. If you have something useful to say, please do.

[highwind8124]

Actually, it isn't a question merely designed to get a response. It does express doubt. This shown in the word "But...", as if to say: "But Jesus, we can't because..." and by the words "in this remote place" emphasizing the obstacle stopping them.

If the disciples asked the question in the way you assume they did, simply wanting to know how, they would say: "How would you like us to do this? Same as last time?"

[cosmicjackpot]

Wow! So I guess The Son is not all -powerful! The Son= God. Wow! So I guess God is not all-powerful. Or, maybe Jesus was not all-man and all-god at the same time; just a watered-down half-breed demigod, like Hercules.

[Intrepidman]

I admit the metaphor is not perfect. I was just trying to show how raising oneself would be different than raising another.

However, think of this, if Thomas had not expressed doubt we could say that the people were not believable since they were all mindless drones.  People do not respond to horrific events in the same way. I would say that the doubt of Thomas is evidence for the validity of the bible, not against.

[DelGriffith10]

100% --- If the Gospels had no variations and noticeable subtleties, that would make them noticeably more prone to attacks of mythology and legend. The very fact that they don't perfectly coincide does them a service. It is in the core aspects and teachings of Jesus in which they never differ. Luke may have been more observational than Matthew, seeing things in more detail. The fact that Matthew doesn't describe the same detail, in no way diminishes their accounts, reliability or historicity.

[Intrepidman]

Exactly.

[highwind8124]

The opposite is true when police interrogate suspects and lawyers put witnesses on the stand. Major variations in story indicate at least one liar. Lawyers frequently manage to expose lying witnesses by asking them the details of what happened and finding contradictory testimony.